Letters @~Any letters sent to me that aren't marked 'not for publication' @~and which deal with adventure-related matters will be @~considered for inclusion, maybe being edited in the process. ------------------------------------------------------------------ @~Some W95 letters, starting with ... Philip Morgan, Caerphilly I had problems with Win95 not unlike one of your correspondents. What caused problems was the EZ Drive v5.0 [licensed to Connor] program that came with the drive which allowed the system to format the hard disc above 500 MB. It worked with Windows 3.1 but Win 95 would only allow 16 bit hard disc access. I then bought Qemm 8 (curse the damn thing) and ended up with a system that was completely jammed. Luckily I'd been Mr Sensible and had a selection of start up discs that allowed me to get back into the system. The whole hard disc had to be reformatted (including the Master Boot Record using FDISK with some obscure parameters). I threw EZ Drive away and used the hard disk at 500 MB only and everything worked fine after. With my current system (and the previous DX2-66 / 8MB RAM / 125 MB disc machine I simply put DOS 6.2 back onto the system as well as Win 95 / DOS 7, so that when I close down Windows 95 using ALT/F4 and go back to DOS I'm back in DOS 6.2 with 621K of memory available for programs (586K if there's EMS). Qemm 8 gives even more (up to 627K) but it's evil and causes more problems than it's worth. Tanks! needs 587K (actually even more despite what the manual says) and that works fine. A boot up disc with a basic set of DOS 6.2 bits on presumably would also work (BTW you don't know anybody who wants to buy Qemm 8, do you - someone you don't like, preferably?) @~I would have been tempted to get Qemm 8 before that glowing @~review . Though my memory (or, rather, my PC's memory!) @~management is so much better since Win 95 that I never bothered @~to upgrade from the old Qemm which I've used for a couple of @~years in various versions. ------------------------------------------------------------------ @~More Win 95 troubles and solutions from ... Vic Horsley, Haverfordwest I was so pleased to read of the initial trouble you had installing Windows 95, I had exactly the same problems last year and so did a friend, so now we can all see it's a good point of information to pass on. I first set up Windows 95 on my 486SX2/50 8mb RAM. The Windows 95 wouldn't accept the upgrade from 3.11 so I went through DOS, this worked but it was unreliable. I changed my chip to a DX4/100, this helped in that there were fewer crashes, however the big change came when I upgraded to 16mb RAM and also reinstalled Windows 95 using my old Windows 3.11. I have all my original data and no crashes, today it looks like this 486DX4/100 24 MB RAM and it flies along. It's really great, best thing I've done. @~I'm planning to upgrade to a Pentium 166 with 16 or 32 meg RAM @~in November which should improve things immensely. Despite my @~current lowly 486DX2/66 with 8 meg RAM, I still find Win 95 much @~better than 3.11 - fewer crashes all round. The only real @~problems I've had have been with getting the printers, tape @~drive and scanner all working fine - BIG thanks to Vicky and @~Darkside for hunting out drivers for me on the Internet! @~A quiet time this issue, that's all the letters for this month. - o -